THIRD SECTION

CASE OF JEHOVAS ZEUGEN IN DEUTSCHLAND
AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 53075/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 March 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Jehovas Zeugen In Deutschland and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
 Mateja Đurović,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

• PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 November 2018.

2.  The applicants were represented by Mr P. Muzny, a lawyer practising in Geneva.

3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. The Finish Government, invited to intervene as third party in the proceedings, exercised their right to do so.

• THE FACTS

4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicants complained of the restriction of their right to freedom of expression by banning of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious publications as extremist material. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

• THE LAW
  1.         Jurisdiction

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

2.      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention

7.  The applicants complained principally of the restriction on their right to freedom of expression by banning of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious publications as extremist material. They relied on Article 10 of the Convention.

8.  The Court observes that in the leading case of Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 190-207, 7 June 2022, it already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. The Court held, in particular, that the decision to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publications to be “extremist” resulting in a State-wide ban on their distribution had interfered with the right of the applicant publishers of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature to impart information under Article 10 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 9.

9.  The Court found that the above interference had not been “prescribed by law” due to the overly broad definition of “extremism activities” in Russian law (section 1(1) of the Suppression of Extremism Act) enabling the Russian authorities to restrict the distribution of the non-violent religious publications and preventing publishers to anticipate which publications could be categorised as “extremist” and banned on that account. The Court also found that the above interference was not “necessary in a democratic society”. It concluded that there has accordingly been a violation of the above Convention provision.

10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 9.

3.    remaining complaints

12.  The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13.  The Court has examined them and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not require separate examination in view of the Court’s findings in paragraphs 10-11 above.

4.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Taganrog LRO and Others, cited above, § 300), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
2.      Declares the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 9 of the Convention, concerning the banning of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious publications as extremist material, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine the remaining complaints separately;
3.      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 10 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 9;
4.      Holds
   1.   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
   2.   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
5.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention

(various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.